DM20 Protocol

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states it updates properties 'by a given amount', implying additive changes, but doesn't clarify if this is a mutation (likely yes), what permissions are needed, whether changes are reversible, or how errors are handled (e.g., if some characters in the list don't exist). This leaves significant gaps for a tool that modifies multiple entities.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('update properties for multiple characters at once') without any fluff. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity of updating multiple characters with various property changes, the description is inadequate. No annotations exist to clarify safety or behavior, and there's no output schema to indicate return values. The description doesn't address error handling, idempotency, or side effects, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds marginal value by implying that changes are additive ('by a given amount'), which aligns with parameter names like 'hp_change', but doesn't provide additional context beyond what the schema already states (e.g., that 'names_or_ids' can include player names, or that changes can be positive or negative).

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb ('update') and resource ('multiple characters') with the scope 'by a given amount', making the purpose specific. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_character' (singular) or 'apply_effect', leaving room for ambiguity about when to choose this bulk operation over alternatives.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_character' (for single characters) or 'apply_effect' (which might handle similar property changes). There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases (e.g., after a party-wide event).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.